So you guys want a NOBLE cause?

[PotFace]

Hey everyone,

You want a noble cause for a war? You don’t have to look very hard. The enemy is lurking everywhere you go. It lives amongst all of us – as a common enemy. We can all relate in some way or another, the damage that this enemy causes to our alliances, and to the whole planet. Ladies and gentlemen, our common enemy is the “useless eaters” of the cyberverse – people that show up here to play, and decide not to play. And SHAME ON THEM !!

Nearly every alliance is plagued with members that do absolutely nothing to contribute. All I have to do is imagine a string of alliances where every member is active, and what those types of alliances could accomplish. I see a new standard being set – a standard that would encourage some of these “useless eaters” to be a bit more active. I say, “if you want to play like a rogue, then you should be a rogue!”

Too many alliances? Problem solved. Imagine what the world would be like. It would reconfigure the cyberverse as we know it. Alliances that lose the overwhelming majority of their members (which would be every alliance, btw), would be apt to merge. Or quite possibly, new alliances would be formed to host active refugees from disbanded alliances. One thing is for sure, though. When new nations join an alliance, they’ll know what the standard is. And the planet’s most worthy players would no longer be diluted amongst those who don’t care much about it.

Stupid wars? It would be a thing of the past. To date, the cyberverse has used the inactive / ill-informed masses as a weapon. With completely active memberships, only the most responsible of leaders will prevail. In an ideal society, a stupid casus belli = coup. And once the planet’s inactives become the enemy, you are encouraging them to either play or leave. Until this happens, the quality of our community will deteriorate, and along with it, the quality of the alliances that it houses. Until finally, nobody cares at all anymore. When you’re surrounded by dead weight everywhere you go, it’s easy to get discouraged. So let’s shake off the lead and reset our standards here.

Lack of war? Not anymore. Now you have a noble cause, and plenty of targets. Not only are you preserving the integrity of our environment and of our community, but the number of inactives stretch as far as the eye can see. The process of “cleaning house” is a tech mine, for those who love tech. And rest assured, that tech is going toward a use – a purpose – a goal.

I’m not suggesting that we remove the right to be inactive here. All I’m suggesting is that leeching off of an alliance should be considered an act of war. It’s just as harmful, if not more harmful, than raiding itself. It’s detrimental to morale, it uselessly burdens an alliance’s operations, and it’s morally wrong. When you take without giving, it’s called STEALING. These people should be rogues, and I think that you’ll find that if every alliance agreed to shed its dead weight, things would improve 1000 fold nearly overnight for all alliances. If you want higher quality, you have to go after it. It’s not going to happen on its own.


Thoughts? Ideas? Opinions?

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281375784' post='2407859']Thoughts? Ideas? Opinions?[/quote]
I think that your system, which is thankfully impossible to implement, would end up collapsing participation in this game to the point it folds. While I appreciate the sheer enthusiasm you seem to have it would perhaps be better concentrated on growing the game's population base rather than purging it.

[Sande]

I don't see this coming unless every alliance does it. And if one aliance says it will protect all inactive nations, it will get enough power to kick every other alliance back.
Your fantasy will never be real.
Also, most alliances are looking to increase the amount of players not decrease it by forcing them to leave the game.

[Sir Sci]

1. Not everyone can always be active. I have had bouts of extreme activity and complete inactivity throughout my 4+ years of playing this game.
2. I have no clue who you are.

[Chief Savage Man]

Solution: Declare war on Blackstone Commission.

[M6 Redneck]

Sounds like a plan - ask the powerful to remove the source of thier power.

M6

[PotFace]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1281378081' post='2407940']
I think that your system, which is thankfully impossible to implement, would end up collapsing participation in this game to the point it folds. While I appreciate the sheer enthusiasm you seem to have it would perhaps be better concentrated on growing the game's population base rather than purging it.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that inactive alliance members really account for that large of a portion of the game?



[quote name='Sande' timestamp='1281378084' post='2407941']
I don't see this coming unless every alliance does it. And if one aliance says it will protect all inactive nations, it will get enough power to kick every other alliance back.
Your fantasy will never be real.
Also, most alliances are looking to increase the amount of players not decrease it by forcing them to leave the game.
[/quote]

What if, instead of being forced to leave the game,they be forced to leave the alliances? And, whatever power that any alliances get, will certainly not be from inactives, as inactives are [i]inactive[/i]. You're talking [i]quantity[/i]. I'm talking [i]quality[/i]. If the quality of the game degrades, well, at least we'll still have a few thousand people in it. Right?


[quote name='Sir Sci' timestamp='1281378201' post='2407947']
1. Not everyone can always be active. I have had bouts of extreme activity and complete inactivity throughout my 4+ years of playing this game.
2. I have no clue who you are.
[/quote]

Me too. And same to you.


[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1281381649' post='2408092']
Solution: Declare war on Blackstone Commission.
[/quote]

LOL very funny XD... And how would that solve anything?

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='PotFace' timestamp='1281384912' post='2408213']Are you suggesting that inactive alliance members really account for that large of a portion of the game?[/quote]
Pending how tough you make your definition of contribution somewhere between a plurality and a majority of the population. It varies between alliances but even the long term participation rate in your elite micro-alliances isn't usually 100%.

[PotFace]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1281386168' post='2408272']
Pending how tough you make your definition of contribution somewhere between a plurality and a majority of the population. It varies between alliances but even the long term participation rate in your elite micro-alliances isn't usually 100%.
[/quote]


Well, that's exactly my point. Long term participation in [i]any[/i] alliance is seldom 100%. I left the definition out so that it could be discussed. And of course, it would be up to the alliance itself to take out its own trash, as nobody else would really know who isn't really actively participating. Personally, I don't think that the definition should be all that rough and tough - just a little time in any alliance's departments here and there should suffice.

I talking about the absolute lowest of the low here. The ones that do nothing but fill out an application, get approved, and then disappear. That's not teamwork, imo. They want the cake, but they don't want to be in the kitchen making it. And when war comes, they're usually the ones to leave. I say stomp them into the ground.

[Ketther]

It would be really helpful if you defined "inactive", "useless" and so on...
Or maybe you just want micro-alliances to play a micro-game.

There will always be more sheep than wolves/shepherds. Otherwise there would be just bite marks and sticks. And everyone needs meat and wool dude.

[PotFace]

[quote name='Ketther' timestamp='1281387816' post='2408324']
It would be really helpful if you defined "inactive", "useless" and so on...
Or maybe you just want micro-alliances to play a micro-game.

There will always be more sheep than wolves/shepherds. Otherwise there would be just bite marks and sticks. And everyone needs meat and wool dude.
[/quote]



Nah, this is just an idea I was kicking around today for everyone. Couldn't get enough intelligent discussion on it over at BCOM (today was fairly inactive), so I turned to OWF for a bit of insight. No micro-games here.


I love your analogy, btw. And I do agree with it. But jeez... there's SO many sheep out there, shouldn't we be trying to increase the wolf-count here?

[KingEsus]

[quote name='Sir Sci' timestamp='1281378201' post='2407947']
1. Not everyone can always be active. I have had bouts of extreme activity and complete inactivity throughout my 4+ years of playing this game.
[/quote]

I would concur with SirSci.

You have no right to judge, not everyone can be active all the time. All alliances rely on the great mass of less active members, who generally in time of war, leap to their alliance's defence with an associated rise in activity.

By all means build your own super-active alliance i imagine it would implode in bickering and be damaged by people shouting their mouths off on these forums every two minutes.

[quigon jinn]

Fortunately, inactivity is relative, so you can continually purge people till only one person remains!

(this is why you need to define what you mean)

[PotFace]

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1281391198' post='2408428']
Fortunately, inactivity is relative, so you can continually purge people till only one person remains!

(this is why you need to define what you mean)
[/quote]


I was hoping that you guys would

[Tiberious]

[quote name='KingEsus' timestamp='1281390512' post='2408416']
I would concur with SirSci.

You have no right to judge, not everyone can be active all the time. All alliances rely on the great mass of less active members, who generally in time of war, leap to their alliance's defence with an associated rise in activity.

By all means build your own super-active alliance i imagine it would implode in bickering and be damaged by people shouting their mouths off on these forums every two minutes.
[/quote]

Good KingEsus,

Maybe its just different perspective from reading this that differs between you and I but I did not take anything from this topic that cast judgment down on anyone. Rather took it as someones opinion being shared for the sake of discussion and healthy debate. To react with that much harshness is a bit overdone don't you think?

Respectfully,

Tiberious

[flakese]

Your wish is coming true, the inactives are leaving in droves not the Wolves. Is this a better world for it? probably not.

[bigwoody]

They're out of my range. War is over, I win.

[Qaianna]

Think this one's way too subjective to work. Trying to figure out who contributes, who's leeching--seriously, would you call someone who faithfully sells technology, on time every cycle, inactive? Even if 'Tech sent' makes up 80% of their forum posts? Or someone who lifts the spirits of everyone..and actually shovels pixels once a month at random? (Ideally, of course, you want both.)

And don't forget, some folks WANT to be sheep. I know it's weird, but there's some people who come in figuring their lot is to follow orders and go 'baa'.

[KingEsus]

[quote name='Tiberious' timestamp='1281393392' post='2408491']
Good KingEsus,

Maybe its just different perspective from reading this that differs between you and I but I did not take anything from this topic that cast judgment down on anyone. Rather took it as someones opinion being shared for the sake of discussion and healthy debate. To react with that much harshness is a bit overdone don't you think?

Respectfully,

Tiberious
[/quote]

Perhaps I have a guilty conscience regarding current activity rates

I would say though that lately there is a distasteful trend of discourse which suggest players or alliances should not exist simply because they don't conform to how some think the game should be played. For example regarding neutral alliances. If players and alliances want to play in relative peace and calm, or without high activity rates, they should be allowed to try (although I would not argue they have a 'right' to a quiet life above what they can safeguard themselves).

(edit: double quote glitch)

Edited August 10, 2010 by KingEsus

[Baldr]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1281419394' post='2409224']
And don't forget, some folks WANT to be sheep. I know it's weird, but there's some people who come in figuring their lot is to follow orders and go 'baa'.
[/quote]

An example.


[img]http://orri.blog.is/users/49/orri/img/c_documents_and_settings_notandi_my_documents_my_pictures_killer_sheep.jpg[/img]

[Tiberious]

[quote name='KingEsus' timestamp='1281428148' post='2409352']
Perhaps I have a guilty conscience regarding current activity rates

I would say though that lately there is a distasteful trend of discourse which suggest players or alliances should not exist simply because they don't conform to how some think the game should be played. For example regarding neutral alliances. If players and alliances want to play in relative peace and calm, or without high activity rates, they should be allowed to try (although I would not argue they have a 'right' to a quiet life above what they can safeguard themselves).

[/quote]

If you are active for the most part there is no need to feel guilt. Inactivity hits all of us from time to time, after all this is just a game and real life always comes first. I think the remarks on the inactive was made towards the ones that are never active and never will be, not the ones who try but sometimes fall into inactivity.

As far as the alliances go, I agree to an extent. I think all alliances have the right to pursue which ever path they choose. However this being a game of strategy made up of many different people with different views no one is completely safe on the paths they choose. This game has an alliance for any type of person out there and that is what makes this game great. That being said, this being a game of strategy and cooperation an alliance is only as good as the active members that it can count on. Look through history and see how many alliances won wars they were outnumbered by a great deal. It happens a great deal.

[CRexx]

Some of the best fighters and loyalest members I've never know were in TOP, yet they never posted on the forums, they were rarely active in internal politics. They'd been registered on those forums for years and had half the posts some of the newer arrivals did. However 24 hours before a DoW you saw them all pop onto IRC, ready to roll. Your idea fails because basically you want to purge everyone who doesn't play the game with an eye on a leadership position. This is stupid because our best wars involved great armies and some of our best drama involved inactives, like in GWIII when the Legions had ~1k members and only managed to get off a 200 member blitz.

I think the problem is no one wants to be middle management these days. A lot of the less talented micro alliance leaders and those leaders who never manage to get their alliances beyond protectorate status are perfect for midlevel military command, recruitment, economic audits, etc. The problem is the care bear mentality where pretty much anyone can get a protectorate. Heck people like SLAP are on their third protectorate, despite the manner of their previous breakups. We need to let some of the smaller alliances take a punch to the face, have their ego humbled and their leaders herded back into a middle management role elsewhere. That simplifies the web, gives us more .mil and .gov types to monitor activity and rebuild faster and hopefully increases the pace of the game.